Ark Encounter tax incentives in jeopardy over alleged restrictive religious hiring practices

Posted Thursday, October 9, 2014 9:23 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Tax incentives for the Noah's Ark theme park in Northern Kentucky are in jeopardy over the state's concern about possible religious discrimination in hiring, records obtained by The Courier-Journal show.

Read more from The Courier-Journal.

Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:25 PM

Darn that human decency thing!

Something I didn't see or maybe forgot about (I didn't re-read the article) is that even if the AiG portion is non-profit, aren't they still bound by non-discrimination laws because they are not a church, and they are paying people to work for them? Or would that aspect of the company still fall under a religious institution of a sort and therefore possibly exempt them from the rules for hiring? Little confused about that point.

+0
Sunday, October 12, 2014 7:29 PM

What I find deeply offensive about the Hobby Lobby owners is that they invest in the very companies that manufacture the products they claim so grievously offend their religious principles. If they have to pay for it? Deeply offensive to their religious beliefs. If they can cash a check because of it? Happy to do it.

Last edited by slithernoggin, Sunday, October 12, 2014 7:29 PM
+5Loading
Sunday, October 12, 2014 9:57 PM

To the pure all things are pure.

+0
Monday, October 13, 2014 8:56 AM

Captain Hawkeye said:

Yes I can. Just like I could blame them for trying to not hire people of color. Seriously

Apples and oranges. You can choose your religion. You can't choose the color of your skin.

+0
Monday, October 13, 2014 5:12 PM

Nobody's "pure-fect."

Investing in companies that sell the very products they claim to find deeply offensive to their beliefs is plain, simple rank hypocrisy.

+0
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:53 AM

This remind me of... Chick-Fil-A sells ham for breakfast. They are against homosexuality because Leviticus says it is wrong, yet Leviticus also says that eating ham is wrong. lol

+4Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:19 AM

Being a church is not a requirement.

And Lost Kause, you are cherry picking Scripture. Read the New Testament some time.

+0
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:02 AM

How is *he* cherry picking?

All he's saying is, they either stick to Leviticus, or they don't - It's pretty simple. It seems like they're the cherry-pickers for only following the parts they see fit.

Not that I agree with an all-out CFA boycott - I'll still eat there from time to time, but it's true that they're following one part of scripture while ignoring the other. Makes me wonder what kind of fabric their uniforms are made of...

+7Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:50 AM

B'ster B said:

...you are cherry picking Scripture.

I think that was his point. You can do that with any major religion and justify everything from slavery to murder of holocaust proportions and jihad. This, despite the core tenant of all the Abrahamic religions: Don't be a dick.

+8Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:17 AM

Just to clarify as I see this stated often in many places, the Mosaic law prohibiting pork was due to health reasons but the law on homosexuality was due to morality. Since this is a 'Christian based' religion, they wouldn't be bound under the mosaic law against pork (which we now know how to cook properly), as Christianity teaches that Jesus' death and ransom supersedes the Mosaic law, yet homosexuality was still against Christian morality.

Last edited by Tekwardo, Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:49 PM
+1Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:44 PM

A main reason you base laws on secular beliefs is because one man's halal is another man's haram.

Or something...

I think Jeff's "Don't be a dick" is simple and succinct. Used to like the Golden Rule....until I heard the Platinum Rule. Instead of "treat others as you want to be treated" - go with this instead:

"Treat others as they want to be treated."

Because not everyone loves bacon as much as I do.

+3Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 7:58 PM

Oh I love you, you big flaming hamosexual, you! (((Gaytor)))

As for the 'cherry-picking' usuals, feel free to live your lives according to your rules/beliefs/fear-of-godnessness/etc/etc/and so forth. But for the love of #whatever, stop pushing your agenda and beliefs on the rest of us and get on with your own lives instead of dragging us rationals into your little toilet bowl of issues :) Thanks :)

+2Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:13 PM

But "don't be a dick" and "treat others as they want to be treated" aren't always 100% black and white. Seems to me that when people make those statements, they mean what they view as a dick or how they think others want to be treated. Often times, that involves a value judgment as well. Who is say who is right and who is wrong? Same is true of people who object to someone else pushing an agenda. Its only an "agenda" if it differs with my view of the world, right?

+2Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:22 PM

I don't buy that. Most of what I would consider dicketry is people trying in some way to oppress others over something that doesn't affect them in the first place. Same sex marriage isn't going to hurt you any more than someone being black or female or whatever. People who do physical harm to others isn't a judgment call, that's well beyond being a dick.

+7Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:34 PM

If you think gays getting married damages the sanctity of your fourth marriage, you're not part of the solution.

+8Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:39 PM

Not to correct Gator, but, perhaps, maybe to "treat others as they should" be treated mayhaps be easier to comprehend.

Personally, for me, it's only an agenda if you're using your views to treat others different from you as inferior or lesser than yourself.

Really, really personally, what I do not get in the slightest is the obsession of religious organisations, and their brethren, into the lives of gay people - seriously! What is the fascination? We are just as liable to get into boring, rut-stuck relationships as much as you are but (and I'm fairly confident of being backed up here), *WE* don't thrive on scrutinizing your private lives, your emotions, your feelings nor your relationships.

The grass isn't greener, It does appear to be much better looked after, however...

I have never plonked myself down beside a stranger on a coaster, ride or otherwise and pondered their sexuality. Never. If you have, however, I'd suggest that the problem is with yourself and not the stranger you rode with.

+2Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:00 PM

rollergator said:

If you think gays getting married damages the sanctity of your fourth marriage, you're not part of the solution.

This.

Regardless of anyone's moral standing, when governments try to turn issues of free will into civil issues, nobody stands to win. That many religious (of all differing faiths) are in anyway involved in politics really goes beyond what most of them claim to teach.

One is allowed to have my feelings, subscribe to my moral system, and think the way one does. It's when one demanding that someone else has to have the same feelings/morality/thoughts as they do that it becomes a problem & again, nobody stands to win.

I don't have to accept or support something, that doesn't give me the right to try and stop you from doing it.

Many so called Christians forget that part where it says to treat others as superior to you.

+0
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:12 PM

Oops. Did I accidentally open a can or delicious gay worms?

Sorry.

I've stopped boycotting the anti-gay chicken restaurant lately. I don't eat there as often as I would if they were not dicks, but the food is just so good. A lot of the time when I go in there, I feel uncomfortable, as if people are looking at me and judging me, but I know in the end that they really can't help it. That's the way they are taught by hateful old geezer preachers. I even overheard an anti-gay dad teaching his poor little five or six-year old the evils of homosexuality over a delicious chicken sandwich and a Coke the last time I was there. No kidding! The hate is hard to ignore, but I diligently try. It used to really bother me, to the point that it affected my everyday life. I'm not ever going to get my panties in a bunch because of it again.

John 3:16-17 are the only two Bible verses I need. The rest is confusing, contradicting filler.

+2Loading
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:36 PM

Boycotting franchised businesses ends up being problematic. The family that runs the company may be bigots, but the people that own your local franchise may be 180 degrees away from those beliefs. Is it okay to punish gay-friendly local business owners (some local Chick-fil-A owners have supported or sponsored local gay pride events, for example) for the beliefs of corporate management?

I just have to laugh when folks like Rush Limbaugh (on his fourth marriage) or Newt Gingrich (on his third) presume to address the sanctity of marriage.

Last edited by slithernoggin, Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:42 PM
+2Loading
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:10 AM

Jeff said:

I don't buy that. Most of what I would consider dicketry is people trying in some way to oppress others over something that doesn't affect them in the first place. Same sex marriage isn't going to hurt you any more than someone being black or female or whatever. People who do physical harm to others isn't a judgment call, that's well beyond being a dick.

You helped prove my point. One, you don't buy it. Does that mean someone who does is wrong? On what basis? Two, you reference most of what you consider dicketry. What about the rest of what you consider dicketry? Any room for disagreement in those instances or is your view correct there as well?

I think gator's swipe at a 4th marriage (I suspect aimed at Limbaugh) is valid but at the same time calls into question couples who have only been married once and for long periods of time. Can those couples have views of the sanctity of marriage that are more valid than those who have been married multiple times?

I voted against the same sex marriage ban in Ohio in 2004. I don't have an issue with same sex marriages. But it seems to me to be arrogant to say my view must be correct and anyone who disagrees with me is absolutely and totally wrong.

Views that we each can have our own moral views but we cannot force them on other people seem naïve/idealistic to me. Societies make value judgments every day. Often times where to draw the lines is pretty clear but that is not always the case. We prohibit a host of things that many people think should not be prohibited. And the choice is comply or face fines/jail time.

Over time, those value judgments often change. Do they change because we got them wrong initially and now have them right? I would like to think so. But again, I think its naïve to thing that is always the case. In those instances its just a matter of times changed.

And that circles back to my post to the pure all things are pure. Hobby Lobby believes all of their views are pure so to them there is no hypocrisy or inconsistency. And those who say no one should judge often make judgments of their own.

+3Loading

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...